This Research Note documents
President Eisenhower’s views on Southeast Asia in general, but Laos in
particular, which advocate for US military intervention to prevent the fall of
Laos to Communists. We comment on the implications of his views regarding
escalation in Southeast Asia as continuity of policy for the period 1945-1972.
We take the view that the Viet
Nam War was an American experience which started immediately after World War 2
and ended in 1975, making it America’s own 30 Years War. It thus affected the
presidencies of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson,
Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Involvement in the region escalated
continuously until President Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accords with North
Viet Nam in 1972.
President Eisenhower focused on
providing aid to various Southeast Asian countries in an effort to mute or
reverse the influences of Communist forces seeking to establish rule in the
region. While he authorized a number of military advisors to assist the
Vietnamese, he did not commit combat troops.
He viewed Laos as the linchpin of
the region, so much so that he felt that the United States should take
unilateral military action in Laos should Communist forces threaten to
overpower the non-Communist government. Eisenhower also shared this view with
President-elect Kennedy in 1961 and maintained it without change for the
duration of the Kennedy presidency.
Kennedy in turn was quite
solicitous of the General’s views, maintaining a steady correspondence with him
about Southeast Asia and other domestic and foreign matters.
In a
Memorandum on Conference between President
Eisenhower and President-elect Kennedy and their Chief Advisers on January 19,
1961, date January 24, 1961, Kennedy advisor Clark Clifford recorded
the following observation from the meeting about President Eisenhower:
At this point, President Eisenhower
stated that Laos is the present key to the entire area of South East Asia. If
Laos were lost to the Communists, it would bring an unbelievable pressure to
bear on Thailand, Cambodia and South Vietnam. President Eisenhower stated that
he considered Laos of such importance that if it reached the stage where we
could not persuade others to act with us, then he would be willing, "as a
last desperate hope, to intervene unilaterally."
Robert McNamara also attended the
meeting, but filed this report to the President-elect:
7* President Eisenhower stated without
qualification "If Laos is lost to the Free World, in the long run we will
lose all of Southeast Asia." A. With respect to Laos: 1. President
Eisenhower advised against unilateral action by the United States in connection
with Laos.
The notes are most intriguing in
what they emphasize. Clifford reports Eisenhower supporting unilateral intervention as a
last but necessary step, while McNamara only reports Eisenhower’s reluctance to
take unilateral action, which in and of itself does not foreclose such
action.
Kennedy’s own recollection of the
meeting is as follows:
I asked the Secretary [Herter] as to
whether in his opinion we should intervene if the SETO was invoked by the
government. He said very directly that he felt we should. It was the cork in
the bottle. If Laos fell, then Thailand, the Philippines, and of course Chiang
Kai Shek would go. I turned to the President. He stated also that he felt we
should intervene.
In Kennedy’s memorandum, the
trigger is a SEATO invocation for intervention against the Communists rather
than a unilateral one. So while they all heard Eisenhower support intervention
in Laos, it is not clear whether this action required SEATO sanction or joint action,
or, if the US would shoulder the intervention alone, thus making it unilateral.
That undertaking would be outside the boundaries of the treaty which was a
mutual defense pact.
In 1962, Eisenhower clears the ambiguities noted above, according to CIA Director John McCone’s Memorandum for the Record dated May 10, 1962:
Eisenhower dwelt at length on the danger of South Vietnam and Thailand as both will be outflanked if Laos is in the Communist hands and concluded that such a situation would be so critical to Southeast Asia and so important to the U. S. that most extreme measures, including the commitment of U.S. forces to combat in Laos, were justified.
Eisenhower is
later reported in the memorandum as stating that US unilateral action would be “appropriate.”
He expressed views so strongly about the importance of Laos and Southeast Asia
that he urged the President to go before Congress seeking authorization to act
in Southeast Asia.
It is thus
impossible for anyone to argue that Eisenhower opposed escalation in Vietnam,
even if his own administration had not reached that point. He certainly felt
that events were rapidly reaching a crescendo in 1962, and we must note that Eisenhower received regular military and intelligence briefings throughout the Kennedy tenure.
For those
arguing that Eisenhower was opposed to military intervention in the region, we
present the official records which point blankly contradict that view. The
explanation is simple – namely that events in Laos had so devolved that the
former president’s views evolved to the point of advising President Kennedy to
escalate the war.
Subsequent
consultations with President Johnson support the thesis that Eisenhower favored
escalation as he often spoke approvingly of actions Johnson proposed which
increased American involvement in Southeast Asia.
We believe that
we have demonstrated from official memoranda of secret meetings with President
Kennedy and his advisors that President Eisenhower advocated an interventionist
strategy in Laos and Southeast Asia in general. The fact that his
administration committed relatively light resources to the region in no way
reflects his fully developed view of the situation in the peninsula.
We then conclude that Kennedy's actions in Southeast Asia were a moderation of Eisenhower's strategy and ideas on the foreign policy challenges posed by the region.
Reference
Eisenhower-John F Kennedy Correspondence, Correspondences - Contact Documents, Eisenhower-JFKContact.pdf
Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.
2 comments:
"It is thus impossible for anyone to argue that Eisenhower opposed escalation in Vietnam..."
Since Kennedy did not take Eisenhower's advice on Laos, eastern Laos fell to the Pathet Lao, thus leaving South Vietnam's flank exposed.
Eisenhower said that South Vietnam would fall if Laos fell, so any escalation in South Vietnam after Kennedy's bogus "neutrality" would seem to inconsistent with Eisenhower's assessment of Laos' importance: Vietnam was lost for all practical purposes when Laos was lost.
Vietnam was lost in 1945 when the same banksters who brought us world war 2 decided that korea and Vietnam would be the next war theaters, whereupon they ordered all arms for japan to go to vietnam. all of the machinations in southeast asia were cia orchestrated events at which the cia's general Lansdale excelled. to argue that they were natural spontaneous events is nonsense.
it is one of the major theses of these blogs that attempts to comprehend world events through the pages of the new York times, etc, is folly. events are not as they seem. there are sinister people, like nelson Rockefeller, averell harriman, mcgeorge bundy, henry cabot lodge, etc who made sure that Vietnam happened.
Eisenhower was a bankster sock puppet who made his comments in anticipation of precisely what followed - it was scripted genocide at which the general excelled in Europe.
Post a Comment